megamitenseifandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:List of Persona 3 Skills
List of Persona 3 Skills Does this page really need to exist? Are there that many differences in the skills and how they work that makes it impossible to simply have any FES- or Portable- exclusive skills have an note saying "FES/Portable-Only"? Same for a lot of the P3 stuff thats split into 2-3 different pages, one for each version of the game; cant most of this stuff be condensed down to a single page? (including the P3:FES game page; really all thats needed there is a page is for The Answer) Tathra (talk) 11:42, September 29, 2013 (UTC) Fynmorph (talk) 20:02, March 4, 2017 (UTC) where did people get those accuracy % for mudo and hama? Re: PC/MC multipliers After thorough in-game testing, I can conﬁrm that the multiplier of x2.5 for Power Charge/Mind Charge is not accurate for either version of Persona 3. Persona 3 FES multiplier test: https://imgur.com/a/sjAsatH Persona 3 Portable multiplier test: http://imgur.com/a/DNVKPGD Adjusting for damage variance and rounding errors, the measurement shows a value of x1.9 for the former, and x2.15 for the latter. If the original x2.5 claim comes from an ofﬁcial strategy guide, it's safe to say that it's inaccurate at this point. A guide might've been written using an older build of the game than the retail one, it's actually a pretty common occurrence in game development. Cookie Yomenye (talk) 20:08, February 9, 2020 (UTC) :The original 2.5x comes from the game itself being datamined by Arthelinus, where the guide was linked but lost due to link rot. The other variables listed that aren't readily available in game are from that same datamining. Unless you can extract similar data, stop changing the variable, "testing" is too vague with too many possibilities for user error. Great Mara (talk) 21:42, February 9, 2020 (UTC) ::Searching through the other materials, the effect works on the Power of the attack before it is entered into the damage formula. Both also list a 2.5 multiplier. Great Mara (talk) 21:57, February 9, 2020 (UTC) I don't think I quite understand the insistence to use old information here. It's one thing to use old data because that's all we have, but with actual tests, why hold onto old datamined information that we apparently can't access anymore? And how could running tests multiple times and calculating the average be "too vague with too many possibilities for user error"? Could you at least elaborate on that point if you think this method of testing is faulty? The Ultimate Fan Boy, Fan of a lot of things 23:29, February 9, 2020 (UTC) :The "insistence" is that it's actually verified information versus unreliable user testing which shows nothing going on in the back end once the damage formula is completed, including the "1.9" multiplier figure. Link rot does not invalidate information. Great Mara (talk) 00:19, February 10, 2020 (UTC) But if the resulting damage otherwise follows the damage formula perfectly, there'd be less reason to immediately throw out the 1.9 number. And I don't see any reason to believe that this new multiplier means that the rest of the damage formula must be wrong. And if we can't access the original findings, that makes any claim about what it said suspect; it'd simply be the word of anyone who claims that they saw the original guide and that it said 2.5x vs anyone who's own findings say otherwise. If you know some kind of archived link that at least shows this Arthelinus' findings, please show it, to at least back up the idea someone's findings say that it was 2.5x in the first place. The Ultimate Fan Boy, Fan of a lot of things 03:35, February 10, 2020 (UTC)